It is chemical heterolysis. This damns the standard solar model because heterolysis is evidence for:

1. Electrical current2. Chemical compounds3. Plasma recombination

(as it is known by the conditioned minds that chemicals can't exist on the Sun, nor is the Sun releasing energy via plasma recombination, regardless if the solar wind directly contradicts their models and no mention is made in all astrophysical studies on the entire Earth of these facts of nature.)

Nuclear-fusion in the star that forms when part of the nebula collapses is a plentiful source of energy for chemical reactions. The star illuminates / irradiates the gas and dust in the nebula , and has enough energy left over to produce jets ...

Nuclear-fusion in the star that forms when part of the nebula collapses is a plentiful source of energy for chemical reactions. Ths star illuminates / irradiates the gas and dust in the nebula , and has enough energy left over to produce a jets ...

Nuclear fusion in stars is a red herring. The velocities required for nuclear fusion (energies required to overcome the coulomb barrier) are only existent in birthing galaxies such as Hercules A.

This is where fusion happens RD. These objects are powerful enough to create matter itself. Not stars with temperatures only measured to be no more than 60,000 Kelvin. That is unless you can show me direct observation of a star possessing temperatures above 60,000 Kelvin. (They don't exist the fusion model is hypothetical just so you know.)

...Not stars with temperatures only measured to be no more than 60,000 Kelvin. That is unless you can show me direct observation of a star possessing temperatures above 60,000 Kelvin.

I don't know where you're getting the "60,000 Kelvin" from , you may be using surface temperatures. Our star , The Sun, is only about 6,000 Kelvin on the surface , but millions of degrees Kelvin in the core where fusion takes place.

These need to be restated again because they still have yet to be answered in non-contradictory language.

3. What causes the objects in a PP disk to migrate absent any mechanism for migration?

4. What causes the objects in a PP disk to form their cores?

5. Why in the PP disk do objects which are further from the Sun not possess oceans, such as Mars, when objects which are closer have them?

6. Why in the PP disk is there no mention of chemical reactions, both exothermic and endothermic?

7. Why in the PP disk is there no explanation for the heat production of Uranus/Neptune even though they are suppose to be ice giants?

8. Why in the PP disk are there objects orbiting Jupiter/Neptune/Uranus/Saturn when the Sun was suppose to be the object that all objects orbited?

9. If gravity clumped things together, why are the other objects in our solar system so distant from each other?

10. Why is the Sun ionized plasma in the PP disk, esp when there is no explanation for ionization of a gas cloud. Gravity does not ionize material. Friction ionizes, heat ionizes, electrical current ionizes... there is no mechanism for ionization of a gas cloud... yet...

Ignoring these will not suffice. I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.

I don't where you're getting the "60,000 Kelvin" from , you may be using surface temperatures. Our star , The Sun, is only about 6,000 Kelvin on the surface , but millions of degrees Kelvin in the core where fusion takes place.

There is no evidence for the internal components of the Sun being in excess of >7000 Kelvin. Zero. Show me one observation and I will concede the statement.

The 60,000 is the hottest O-type. I used this as an exaggeration as the O-types are 30,000 Kelvin... not one measurement is of them internally being above that. This means the millions of degrees internally is not observed, thus unsubstantiated for the purposes of science in all stars in all stages of evolution. Unfortunately this has become another gorilla in the room. Nobody wants to talk about how the internal temp measurements have never been observed in the history of star science.

In stellar metamorphosis the temperature drops as you move towards the interior of a hot young star such as the Sun. There is evidence for this as sunspots are thousands of degrees cooler than the surface. The reason why the sunspots are cooler is because the plasma recombines and forms neutral gas, which is heavier than the surrounding plasma, and is not subjected to electromagnetic forcing as is the plasma (charged matter) so it sinks.

This meaning the Sun will circulate the recombining plasma until it neutralizes (obeying the laws of thermodynamics) becoming a red dwarf as the shell contracts and gravitationally collapses.

This is not allowed inside of the standard solar equations though, which is unfortunate. They keep the sun as a quasi-static model not undergoing plasma recombination. Which is in direct contradiction to both observation and natural philosophy (hot objects cool and contract).

4. What causes the objects in a PP disk to form their cores? ... I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.

Granny already knows the answer to #4 ...the disparate components separate-out according to their different densities , ( like the ingredients of granny's chicken soup, if you leave it long enough ),the denser material sinks to the bottom/core, with the least-dense floating on the surface.Earth is still mostly fluid , and would have been entirely molten when the Iron core began to form ...

What should scare the crap out of the readers of this thread is why, oh so very curiously why, does the "planet formation" search get redirected to "nebular hypothesis"?

No competing theories? Why is that? My grandma wants to know why the most basic of understanding is ignored. We have gas, plasma, solids and liquids in outer space, yet no mention of how they transition... it appears that someone said,

"hey, listen fellas, we have this thing called thermodynamics, it will throw off all the models so, yea, if you could ignore that stuff that'd be greeeat."

[ I think knowing how matter transitions from one state to another is taken-as-read on the wikipedia pages about Stellar_evolution and Nebular_hypothesis : most people have heard of (and seen) melting , boiling, condensation and freezing ].

Since you have yet to actually respond to the topic at hand, the general theory of stellar metamorphosis, I will now explain how the core of a star is formed.

Young stars like the Sun are giant vacuum vapor deposition chambers. When the plasma recombines on the surface and falls inwards (gravitationally collapses) the star shrinks, and the material deposits on the substrate in the center.

The substrate in these cases is iron/nickel (from meterorites entering the star in their stable form, from interstellar space). Thus, the young star as it cools takes this material and deposits it in the center like a pearl is formed inside of an oyster. Over many billions of years the pearl gets bigger and bigger (the core) and the star contracts eventually becoming what scientists call "gas giant".

Over many more billions of years the gas giant further collapses and the still very hot interior continues cooling and depositing the material (as it undergoes chemical combination reactions releasing heat) on the center core forming the interior of the new "planet".

As the planet is cooling in the center of the gas giant the atmosphere continues cooling and combines the hydrogen with oxygen forming water which rains down on the interior of the gas giant solidifying the crust and forming land.

When the star scoots closer to another younger host star the atmosphere boils away into interstellar space and there you go. An ocean covered solid rocky ball with a differentiated interior.

This means stellar evolution is the process of planet formation itself. We are standing on an ancient star vastly older than the Sun. The object which we are so familiar with did not always orbit the Sun, as well had many more objects orbiting it when it was a much younger star. It seems to have managed to keep the last remaining "planet" of its earlier years, the Moon.

Unfortunately it will take many years before establishment science corrects themselves. They love hanging on to outdated theories for some strange reason.

4. What causes the objects in a PP disk to form their cores? ... I want clear answers that I can explain to my grandma.

Granny already knows the answer to #4 ...the disparate components separate-out according to their different densities , ( like the ingredients of granny's chicken soup, if you leave it long enough ),the denser material sinks to the bottom/core, with the least-dense floating on the surface.Earth is still mostly fluid , and would have been entirely molten when the Iron core began to form ...

This assumes without evidence that the Earth has ALWAYS been solid/liquid structure.

In stellar metamorphosis the Earth is properly placed inside of a theory in which it was comprised of all phase transitions which are observed in nature.

The "scientists" forgot the last steps of star evolution, when the star loses its spectrum (becomes a planet).

Kid tested, granny approved! If you'll notice it solved the classification problem of brown dwarfs in one simple picture. Someone get the IAU on the longhorn!

... The substrate in these cases is iron/nickel (from meterorites entering the star in their stable form, from interstellar space).

Where did these iron “meterorites” first originate from ?. If stars have to capture their iron from passing meteoroids, as you claim, rather than manufacture iron via fusion in supernovae , ( Iron is “nuclear ash” ) , where did the iron in the iron meteoroids originally come from in your hypothesis ?

Unfortunately it will take many years before establishment science corrects themselves. They love hanging on to outdated theories for some strange reason.

If there was some sign that can be objectively measured which is consistent with your hypothesis , but which is not explicable by the orthodox view, then they would not hang on to their outdated* theory and give you a Nobel Prize , ( rather than your own page on rationalwiki ).

Where did these iron “meterorites” first originate from ?. Where did the iron in the iron meteoroids originally come from in your hypothesis ?

Iron is formed from a birthing galaxy (galactic nucleosynthesis) as well as all other elements. As the galaxy is born it releases all the iron and new elements into large clouds of matter which are highly ionized (birthing galaxies contain the required velocities and heat for fusion to occur, not in stars, there is no measured temperature of the interior of stars beyond their surface temperatures, this is a scientific fact.)

When these clouds rub against each other they release huge amounts of electrical energy which sometimes causes the material to pinch in a z-pinch like the Ant Nebula or Boomerang nebula (these are birthing stars not dying ones). The ionized clouds act as giant balls of lightning which compress the cloud and act as a feedback mechanism, the larger the current the larger the magnetic field, the larger the magnetic field, the stronger the pinch event the more the ionization. IN other words, gravity doesn't birth stars, magnetism and electrical current inside of huge nebular clouds do. I have never heard of gravity welding matter, or gravity causing ionization, only electrical current, heat and friction can do that.

Since there is no capacitor (anode/cathode) to equalize the charge (gravity takes over and makes the cloud round stabilizing it) and since there is so much material the ball completely ionizes and just stays that way dissipating the heat slowly (the star) as plasma recombines and releases heat, and the anode/cathode capacitors that would exist only manifest as "sunspots". Thus stars are electrochemical by their nature.

Right. A noble prize? My gift will be when kindergarters know what they are standing on. Its not just a bunch of rocks as per establishment, it is a black dwarf star older than the Sun. Establishment can keep their silly prizes, those are for the birds. If you think science is about prizes then you have a lot to learn.

Oh I forgot, you do not want to read the theory (as it has been made obvious as your questions have already been answered in the publications) the young star after it is born becomes a giant vacuum vapor deposition chamber. The iron does collect in the central regions of the star because of its stability (and it becomes very much magnetic when it is surrounded by charge/electric current) it clumps together in the central regions of the star forming the core.) Over time this core builds and crystallizes and then the star has something to build the other higher layers on as the star continues its differentiation. Thus, the process of "planet formation" happens inside of stars.

It concerns the location for the formation and abundance of two minerals, kamacite and taenite. For those who do not know, taenite and kamacite are both iron/nickel composites. Kamacite being around 92% iron/7% nickel, and taenite being 25-40% nickel and 60-75% iron.

In this theory the purity of the rocks in regards to iron/nickel composition is a good determinate for its location in a broken up dead star.

In this theory when you are holding an iron/nickel meteorite you are holding a piece of a core to a very ancient destroyed star. So the concept of them entering the atmosphere and being "shooting stars" is partially correct. More like star guts.

We can tell a star's age by basic philosophical principles which have obsoleted the nebular hypothesis:

Here is a rough outline which I drew up which should allow for classification of stars based on their physical characteristics, not based on their "metallicity" as per Big Bang Creationism.

With this clear understanding of what we are looking at we can start to understand what happens to stars as they evolve. They lose their random magnetic fields in favor of a strong global one, they form cores and cool and their atmospheres dissipate both from the ionization radiation of an orbit with a hotter host star to deposition from gaseous matter to solid matter under higher temperatures and pressures. So much can be deduced from star evolution using these easy to understand interpretations.

As we can see stellar evolution is a continuum, there is no clear cut defining boundary yet between old/middle aged and new stars. There are only general characteristics which can be measured.

It is suggested to correct the IAU's definition for exoplanets based on these findings. Failure to do so will result in continued confusion on part of professional scientists and loss of credibility.

What is downright hilarious to me is that establishment claims that the universe isn't old enough for black dwarfs to form, yet they are standing on one.

...but alas! My definition for black dwarf is mutually exclusive of the ad hoc ...nuclear reactions of establishment physics. They have "big bang nucleosynthesis, stellar nucleosynthesis, supernova nucleosynthesis", all three are misguided. It is ONLY galactic nucleosynthesis:

A black dwarf per stellar metamorphosis is a star which has had the majority of its material reach the coulomb barrier, i.e. formed rocks and minerals.

I can help you, but unless you want the help I can't. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.

Unless someone can reasonable address said understanding in relevance to the general theory of stellar metamorphosis I suggest you not respond.

This is accordance to the hypothesis of galactic ejection via Victor Armbartsumian as per the 1957 Solvey Conference and per Halton Arp as per discovery of quasar quantization from active galaxies (Seyfert Galaxies).

If we are in a "dark age" just let me know. I think it should be obvious this has occurred via the ridicule I have been receiving concerning calling out "dark matter" as pseudoscience.

Are real scientists going to engage me? Or is the University of Cambridge going to censor?

The ball is in your court. I suggest you consider that some Americans are brilliant. Some served in the Marines and have college degrees and are pissed off as why perfectly reasonable answers are ignored.